Would You Give Up Your Guns if Thomas Jefferson Told You To?

Recently the pro-gun annexe of the freedom movement has got its
collective panties in a bunch because some buffoon wrote a book
purporting to "prove" that Colonial Americans were unarmed pacifists,
and that American gun culture is of recent and somehow spurious
provenance. Its arguments have been duly vaporized by one of
freedom's truly great writers, Vin Suprynowicz
http://www.infomagic.net/liberty/vs000917.htm [also
TLE #91]

But really, who cares?

As Vin demonstrates, it ain't so. But if it were - so what? Would you
give up your guns if it proved unquestionably true that the Founders
were wimps as self-willedly helpless as Rosie O'Donnell? (Except -
whoops! - like so many of our privileged-class pro-rape activists,
Rosie's whale-like bulk habitually cowers behind the gun of a
mercenary goon.)

How about that Second Amendment? Granted, it should be First, since
we have no rights whatever if we lack effectual means - guns among
other things - to defend them. Certainly, every scrap of actual
scholarship confirms that the amendment unmistakably affirms an
individual right to keep and bear arms: translated into modern terms,
it reads, "Well-armed and trained guerrillas being freedom's
necessary defenders, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed." Note also that the latter clause, which is
manifestly the operative one, needs no adjustment. In truth, as I've
said before, the first clause could read, "The moon being made of
green cheese ..." and the net meaning would be the same: we have the
absolute right to own and carry weapons of any description.

And yes, Virginia, that means RPGs and shoulder-launched SAMs. Nor
has anyone who's seen the footage of the government massacre at Waco
("This is not an assault!") any excuse to doubt our need for such
armament.

But again, so what?

Let's assume instead, in the face of the manifest, it were proven the
Bill of Rights' authors had no intention of recognizing our right as
individuals to arm ourselves for defense against violent crime -
even, or especially, that carried out under color of government.

Would you disarm then?

Let's get down to the bare bones choice you will face, and
soon: when the friendly local police you so unreservedly support come
for your guns, will you hand 'em over?

I'm beset on a weekly basis by appeals - OK, "screeching demands" is
more like it - that I contribute a chunk of my scarce wealth to
combat this or that legislative assault on firearms ownership. Might
as well knock it off, folks; it's all a scam.

The fix is in. The moment they think they have the force to do it and
survive any armed insurrection it provokes, the permanent government
will move to confiscate all private firearms. That's a done deal.

Your guns will be outlawed. In the meantime, a lot of
opportunists, Charltons - excuse it; charlatans - and phonies
(hi, Wayne!) are sucking handsome salaries out of your veins by
pretending to hold back the tide. Yeah, them and King Knut.

There's no such thing as a pro-gun politician; there can be no such
thing as a pro-gun government. You might see individual aberrations -
Ron Paul seems as sincere as he is insignificant - but in political
terms they are lethal mutations. Government is about theft,
enslavement, and murder by nature, and cannot be about anything else.
Participants in the continuing criminal conspiracy we dignify with
the name of government only have incentive, and it is an
overwhelmingly powerful one, to centralize power, profit, and
privilege upon the State and its favored allies. Private possession
of firearms is one of the most decentralizing agencies possible;
therefore government's incentive is urgent and in even the medium
term absolutely irresistible to destroy it.

The only thing which can prevent government's outlawing, and
attempting to confiscate, all private arms is its totally collapsing
first. You probably dismiss that eventuality as vanishingly unlikely,
although the end of the evil delusion of external governance - the
end of obedience - is our sole chance of attaining sustainable
liberty.

Therefore, you'd best prepare yourself for the choice: will you obey
the law? Or will you defy it - accepting all the consequences that
come with that?

For generations we've had dinned into us that civilization would care
for us. That in particular we need not concern ourselves with any
business as barbaric and violent as protecting ourselves - indeed,
must not, lest we taint civilization with our barbarism.

Guess what? It was all a lie, designed to lull us into rendering
ourselves harmless for the benefit of those who prey upon us under
guise of "ruling."

Has it worked on you?

Civilization is a gloss on the truth as phony as "democracy" or
"limited government." The truth is you have nothing - not rights, not
property, no, not friends or relatives or mind or soul or life -
which you are not prepared to fight, to kill or even in seeming
paradox to die, to preserve.

The most you can do is defer that choice. And when have you ever
known a hard decision to grow softer with time?

The politicians will take our guns because they must. No amount of
money you can spend, no vote you can cast, can prevent them.

Only disobedience can. By violence if that's required. The
alternative is total expropriation, enslavement, and death - and
not in half a century, not in a generation, but deadly soon.
American ownership of private firearms is in a real and meaningful
sense the Earth's last best hope for freedom. Which is why the
governments of the Earth are united in hysterical determination to
see us disarmed.

We - and behind us, all humanity - face two crucial questions.

Have we the guts to disobey?

Will we do it in time?

Watch for Victor Milán's near-future epic THE WAR FOR AMERICA.
Freedom can win.

Next
to advance to the next article, or
Previous
to return to the previous article, or
Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 94, October 16, 2000.